SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(All) 106

M.H.BEG
Bharosa – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
C. S. Saran, for Appellants, K. N. Srivastava, for Respondent.

Judgement

BEG, J. -The appellants Bharosa, Charittar and Shital were charged with offences under Ss. 148, 302/149, 328/149 and 323/149, Penal Code and the learned Judge who tried them together with the acquitted accused persons, Dwarika and Deoraj, took the precaution, very properly, of charging them in the alternative with offences under Ss. 302, 326 and 323, Penal Code - with the aid of S. 34, Penal Code. Charittar appellant was also charged separately under S. 302, Penal Code. The appellants were convicted under S. 304, Part I, Penal Code and Ss. 326 and 323, Penal Code read with S. 34, Penal Code, in each case, and were sentenced to seven years, four years, and six months' R. I. respectively.

2. According to the prosecution case, Shiv Dayal deceased Girdhari and Bijai, who were alleged to be in possession of plot No. 131 of village Usari Khurd, in the district of Azamgarh had obtained a decree on 13-7-1962 from the Court of a Munsif restraining Sobaran and others from interfering with what was held to be the decree-holder's possession over plot No. 131. It is also the prosecution case that 9 days after this decree, on 27-7-1962, Shiv Dayal, Girdhari, Hira, (P.W. 6) and Bijai (P.W
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top